Agenda item

(1)          The Chairman welcomed Julie Miles and Christine Robinson to the meeting and invited them to introduce themselves.

(2)          Julie Miles said that she had worked for some 30 years in the field of childcare. She was now the Manager of the Discovery Day Nursery in Parkwood in Maidstone, which had a staff complement of 10.  She was interested in everything related to children’s education, particularly in relation to SEN.

(3)          Christine Robinson had started working for KCC in 1973, specialising in work with Young Children and gaining expertise in deprivation, refugees and pupils with English as an additional language (EAL).  She had also worked the Equality and Inclusion Advisor for KCC’s Early Years Team since 2004.

(4)          Julie Miles said that the Discovery Day Nursery had some 100 children on roll with an age range of 2 to 4.  The two-year olds had their own room.  All 37 of them were in receipt of Free for 2 funding.   Only 23 of the 3 and 4-year olds, however, were eligible for the EY Pupil Premium.   Their parents completed a form including their NI Numbers on a termly basis, ensuring that all those eligible could receive it.  

(5)          Christine Robinson said that the criteria for Free for 2 funding was broader than for the EY Pupil Premium.  The crucial differences in eligibility were that those with an EHC Plan or a Disability Living Allowance were automatically eligible for Free for 2 funding, whereas they were not eligible in respect of the EY Pupil Premium. 

(6)          Julie Miles explained that each child eligible for the EY Pupil Premium received £103 per term.  This funding tended to arrive late on in the term.  For example, the funding for the Autumn Term 2017 had not been received until November.  

(7)          Julie Miles then described the process which took place when children were newly admitted to the Nursery.  Staff members would initially carry out home visits, enabling them to take note of the home circumstances and identify any areas of concern.  This was a crucial aspect of the Nursery’s work as there were currently 20 children with safeguarding concerns, 23 EAL pupils and 20 who had difficulties in using language skills, which could be caused by parental neglect or ignorance.  One three-year old pupil had arrived still using a dummy.  Other problems were due to bottles which contained tea, coke or alcohol leading, in extreme cases, to them having their teeth removed.   Some parents did not encourage their children to speak.   The Nursery was attached to a local Children’s Centre which could offer support such as the “Chatter Matters” course, helping both the children and their parents.

(8)          The Nursery made use of the “Early Talk Boost” programme which had been established by the I CAN charity in 2014.  This was a 9-week programme of small group intervention which taught 3 and 4-year old children new words and sentences.  A progress tracker was employed.  The cost was £520 excluding books. The success of this EY Pupil Premium funded course could best be seen by the example of a boy who had language delay when he arrived but was age-appropriate for his reading and literacy skills by the time he went to school.

(9)          There were no set criteria stating how the EY Pupil Premium should be spent.  One girl with a single mother had needed to be placed in emergency accommodation in Chatham.   She had, however, been making such good progress at the Nursery that she came in by bus in order to continue to attend.  In her case, the EY Pupil Premium was used to pay for tea when she came to the Nursery.

(10)       The father of one of the boys had EAL.   He had asked the Nursery if he could buy school books from the available supply of dual language books (Albanian, Polish, Russian, Latvian).  The EY Pupil Premium had paid for a mantra lingua pen.  This was a device which could also speak 21 languages.  If the child was reading a story about the Gingerbread Man, the pen could translate the story into polish, enabling the family to read the book together. If asked, mantra lingua pens could also be used for translation when grandparents who could not speak English came to the School.   The pens could be purchased for £80.

(11)       Julie Miles replied to a question by explaining that a progress tracker was used to monitor the children’s progress at the Nursery.  This included any support given by the Children’s Centre. The data was then passed on to the Primary School when the child transferred.

(12)       The Nursery was the feeder for 11 local primary schools, and helped to prepare the children for transfer.   The letter informing parents which School their child would be attending was sent to parents in March.  Pictures and uniforms were then brought in, and the Nursery would invite future teachers to meet the children, also involving the parents.

(13)       Julie Miles said that typically, EAL children would stay in the Parkwood area for about 5 years.  Other families would stay there for generations.  This had led to the development of low expectations.  One of the roles of the Nursery was to embed aspirations in the children and, by extension, in their parents.

(14)       Julie Miles then said that staff undertaking the initial home visit would ask many questions.  They would see whether the children rolling or crawling, or at what age they had begun to walk.  They would also ask whether they had had their 2-year health check (about a third of the families would reply that they had not).

(15)       Christine Robinson described some of the difficulties experienced in Kent as a whole.   There had been an 18 month in Dover for children to receive speech and language therapy.  Parents could be resistant to utilising Early Help because they felt stigmatised if they did.  Whenever a child was referred for speech and language therapy, parents were required to attend a workshop beforehand. If they did not, the case would be closed.  

(16)       Christine Robinson replied to a question on what she would ideally like KCC to do to help.  She had brought detailed notes with her in preparation for this question, which are appended to these minutes.  She picked out some of the details as set out in the following paragraphs.

(17)       Christine Robinson said that only 47% of children eligible for EYPP funding actually received it.   The different eligibility criteria for free for 2 funding and the EYPP led to a lack of stability in planning.  The funding was paid in arrears and had not gone up since 2015 and was often insufficient to meet all of the child’s needs.  Support Was needed around EAL for translated information in order to improve EYPP take up.  Evidence provided by settings indicated that many parents refused to disclose their benefits because they believed their financial status would be used against them.

(18)       Christine Robinson then turned to the question of the positive steps that could be taken.  She said it was necessary to improve technology* so that there could be a seamless transition between Free for 2 and EYPP funding and ideally the Pupil Premium in school.  If an ‘opt-out’ rather than an ‘opt-in’ system were introduced, pupils would automatically receive the funding they were entitled to. She believed that the claiming process could be co-ordinated by the County Council.  County-wide publicity would also improve take-up, particularly if it was readily available in other languages. The best overall use of the EYPP funding would be for settings to provide additional staffing to support children’s language development and well-being. 

*Synergy is the name of the digital system used to process the free early education entitlement.